A blog for students in Mrs. Holden's IB Film class
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Avant Garde Cinema
Please post your answers to the Avant Garde screening sheet. Watch and write about all three films. Films are Le Retour a la Raison, Entr'acte, and Le Ballet Mecanique. If you are interested in watching other avant garde films, click here.
1. Man Ray utilizes close ups far more than landscapes. For the most part the camera is static but in certain situations Man Ray changes quickly to a moving camera. The most notable example of this is during the shot of the fairground where the camera pans back and forth very quickly creating a dizzying sensation for the viewer. 2. Man Ray’s use of lighting is at times subtle. My favorite example of the usage of shadows and lighting happens as the mobile is spinning with its shadow and appears to dance with itself. Conversely, the lighting is often quick and in bright flashes out of darkness that grabs the reader’s attention and holds it. 3. Man Ray compels the viewer to witness events from strange angles. In the shot of the women twirling her body it is notable that the viewer never sees her face or her lower body. Man Ray purposely leaves them out and in doing so, piques the viewer’s curiosity and holds their attention more fully. 4. The most glaring implicit meaning that I picked up on was a sentiment of sexual desire demonstrated by the shots of the woman’s torso and breasts. What was particularly interesting about that particular group of shots is that the movement in the shots came from the woman twirling her torso rather than camera movement. In this way, she appeared to be exhibiting her body for the static camera.
Entr’acte
1. Like Man Ray’s “le Retour a la Raison”, Rene Clair favors a static camera. Almost all of “Entr’acte”’s action comes from on camera and usually either with dramatic speed or an extended use of slow motion. At the same time, however, he uses the moving camera in the chase scene involving the hearse. Unlike Man Ray, Rene Clair utilizes far more landscapes than close ups and through this his film contains a more clear and consistent plot, however scattered it might be. 2. Rene Clair’s use of lighting is less obstreperous than Man Ray’s. He appears to use more natural lighting and there is less contrast. 3. Rene Clair leaves out almost any segue from one clip to another. This makes it extremely difficult for the viewer to make sense of the action that takes place on screen. Furthermore, Clair turns the film upside down at many points, which is disorienting for the viewer. 4. The best implicit meaning that I could interpret from the film was that the film mocked the finality and serious aspects of death. I felt as though the last scene was Clair pointing out that everyone eventually dies so it isn’t a big deal. As I was reading the review under the film, however, I stumbled upon what I found to be a very profound implicit meaning. Since Entr’acte was between two acts of a ballet, the author offered an interesting suggestion: “Could the Entr'acte of the film's title represent that short period of what we call "life", that too brief an interval between two acts of an eternal duration? “
Le Ballet Mecanique: 1. Fernand Leger and Dudley Murphy favor mostly close-ups and the camera remains static. 2. The lighting in “Le Ballet Mecanique” was very interesting. The background of the shots were usually black and the objects that were the focus of the shot were usually extremely well lit and contrasted sharply with the black backdrop. 3. Luger and Murphy show us snippets of people or snippets of people’s faces. For instance there are many shots of a women smiling again and again. There are also repeated shots of eyes blinking. Throughout the film we rarely see the whole of anything, merely parts. 4. Because of its extreme experimental nature it was difficult to find implicit meaning in “Le Ballet Mecanique”. However, I noticed a focus on circles, ovals and triangles. Furthermore, the film repeated many pendulum motions, such as the woman swinging on the swing and on various machines. Like I mentioned earlier, the film relies heavily on close ups rather than filming entire objects. The directors might be implicitly suggesting that the audience should focus more on the smaller things in life.
1. In this short film, there are nearly no landscapes present at all. Nearly every clip is very close-up and directly in front of the viewers line of vision. The camera is basically always static and the objects inside each frame are what moves. However, there are a lot of jerky movements due to the choppy editing and object change. 2. In this particular Avant Garde film, I did not find the lighting to help create meaning (possibly because I don’t understand the true meaning!) However, the director did implement the use of shadow in various portions. For example, during the clip of the exposed women, there are bar-like shadows covering her torso. Perhaps, the director was trying to portray her sense of entrapment as a women living in the early 20’s. 3. Since the camera is completely static throughout the film, the director compels you to see only what is exactly shown on-screen. Anything beyond the world of the film is left to the viewers imagination because what they do and can see, is very limited. 4. I definitely did not find there to be any obvious implicit meaning to Le Retour a la raison. However, I did notice a strong theme of circles and round objects (such as the nails, clock, light bulb, coil, etc.) that were all very present and clear.
Entr’acte:
1. Unlike in Le Retour a la raison, Ent’racte has a much wider variety of shot types. The camera works in both static, and moving ways. There are not very many close-ups which already creates huge differences between this Avant Garde film and its predecessors. Many of the shots seen in this film are either landscapes or medium shots, revealing much more to the audience then Le Retour a la raison. 2. Much like in Le Retour, I did not find any significant meaning in Clair’s use of lighting. There are many very lit spots, as well as very dark spots. As an example, the ballerina scene sticks out in my mind as being particularly dark. The stage is nearly completely black, as well as the face of this mysterious dancer, which we find out later happens to be a man. Here, the only thing really lit are the dancers legs and tutu, possible because the director wants the mans true identity hidden until later in the film. 3. At times, the director compels the viewer to see just what is on-screen (mostly when there are close-ups), but many others times the director opens up the frames to create a more understandable film (mostly when there is a moving camera or landscape.) In these particular moments, the viewer gets a better look at the whole picture and story. 4. Although the film is made up of very unrelated clips, I do find it to have some substantial meaning. Particularly with the funeral procession, the director seems to be mocking standard, everyday rituals. Rene Clair also seems to be making fun of the seriousness of art, in this case ballet. Here, we see a male ballerina gracefully dancing what traditionally would be a women’s dance, in a very comical way.
1. Similarly to Le Retour, there are a great deal of close-ups, rather than any other type of shot. The camera remains static for most of the film, as the objects inside of each frame move about. 2. I found that the lighting in Le Ballet Mechanique was vastly different from the other two Avant Garde films. The objects in the foreground were generally extremely bright, compared to the dark backgrounds. This feature really highlighted each object’s purpose in the film. 3. Legar shows the viewer very little about the whole picture. The film is basically composed of quick images of extremely random things, ranging from people, to household appliances, to shapes. I found that the director really leaves out a huge portion of the story, leaving me unable to really grasp what it is about. 4. This was most difficult of the three films to find implicit meaning from. I didn’t really understand how the images on-screen really fit together in any sort of coherent manner.... To be perfectly honest. But that’s not to say that I didn’t find it very interesting!
1. The film, really has no set style that it sticks with, which is sort of the point of Avant- garde films as they are meant to defy the norms of both cinema and society (or I suppose some avant-garde film makers would consider that the same thing). The static camera is used very rarely, only when there is static on the screen or shadows of other things; and it is usually a close-up, which could be meant to convey the entrapment that these filmmakers felt in their conventions. 2. Yes, I think the lighting is really where the meaning of the film comes in, especially with the spinning object (I really don’t know what it’s called, but you know what shot I mean) – as the lighting produces a shadow in the background that makes the viewer see double, or that there is actually two separate objects. This could be interpreted in many different ways, possibly the duality of things. 3. The camera lens is really the only thing that you can identify with, as it is difficult for the viewer to grasp ahold of. The director obscures your view of almost everything – notably the spinning lights in the dark: the viewer can see them but has no clue as to what they really are, so it is left for interpretation. This gives the film the meaning that you, as the viewer are meant to figure things out for yourselves, and not depend solely on the director to spell everything out. 4. I think the implicit meaning of the film is the duality of things – for everything we see there is two different views. Every shot, even the static, is shown in two different ways – whether it is the direction it is moving on the screen or color. Some static is shown white and black and then white and grey, and the spinning lights go in one direction and then cut to a shot of them going in a different direction.
Rene Clair: Entr’acte:
1. The structure of this film is a bit more accessible than the previous one, as it holds to some conventions of cinema: establishing shots, wide shots, close-ups, etc. This film seems more interested in upsetting the norms of cinema at the time through it’s’ context and commentary rather than its experimentation (though it’s from far void of experimentation). 2. One of the most interesting uses of light comes when the man with the bird on his hat is shot down from the roof and falls to his death. The camera is aimed directly at the sun (which itself must have been extremely revolutionary for the time) and slowly fades away as if to represent the dying man’s loss of vision, or closing eyes. 3. The camera almost takes the role of an onlooker to the chaotic events of the situation, and yet sees nothing strange with them – as if all the actions on the screen were normal. And Clair makes sure that we see everything, no matter how unnecessary the viewer may consider it. 4. The implicit meaning of the film is definitely the absurdity of the bourgeoisie class, or even just the upper class. Instead of showing their obsession with wealth and hypocrisy as absurd, the director literally makes them absurd, with street chases, rooftop shootings, and more.
1. Every single shot in the film is a close-up and the camera is always static – noticeably when the woman in swinging you can only see her when she goes pass the camera. 2. I think that the lighting is used more for style than for actual meaning in this film. Many of the shots are put in very placid lighting, giving the film an old-time photo look. And with the static camera and quirks such as the dancing puppet the film works more like a presentation than a movie. 3. The camera lens is static, not moving, so there is much off screen that is not visible and left to the imagination. Sometimes it is known, such as when the girl is on the swing; when she disappears we know she is still on the swing. Other times we must figure it out for ourselves, such as the smile of the girl the viewer is shown with no other object. Match cuts with that specific part play an important role to question, or maybe confuse, the viewer. 4. With the match cuts of the woman’s eyes to many objects and actions in everyday life leads me to believe that the film is just about the wonders of life – not necessary good or bad, since just joyous wonders seems far too happy for an avant-garde film (but maybe not).
1.For the majority of the film the camera remains static as the objects inside the frame, both animated and otherwise, move rapidly (or relatively slowly, as in the shot with the female figure). These objects, both recognizable and ambiguous, are all shot in medium shots or close-ups, with rapid editing forcing the viewer to focus on one right after the other.
2.Throughout the film, the objects which Man Ray wants the viewer to focus on are either white and almost glowing against the dark background (the falling nails at :30) or the inverse(the falling nails at :20). This sharp contrast between dark and light adds to Man Ray’s artistic vision while helping to create an implicit statement on society. I believe Man Ray is speaking upon how the average person views every situation as clear cut and black and white. However, through this film, which plays with viewer expectation and does not follow typical rules, Man Ray wants the viewer to realize that their initial assumptions may be wrong, and everything is not as simple to figure out as they may think.
3.The fast pace, lack of landscape, and constant kinesis within the frame encourage the viewer to focus on exactly what Man Ray intended. This is enhanced by the fact that despite all of the hectic movement, there is really only one focal point in each shot, as is exemplified by the animated spinning face, even if that focal object is repeated, as is the case with the nails. We thus become the camera lens, and despite the unrecognizable images, simply absorb what is within the frame. Many of the focal objects in this film that the viewer is forced to focus on and contemplate are organic and circular, which helps Man Ray express his theme of life’s cyclic nature, as discussed below.
4. Although avant garde film is more of an undefined, anti-academic, means of artistic expression from which it is hard to draw concrete meaning, Man Ray seems to be commenting on human nature. The spinning of the hanging objects and repetition (in inverse colors) of the face and nails indicate that life is a continuous cycle. This seems supported by the initial shot of some sort of microscopic organism beginning life and the ending shot of breasts, which are essentially the root of life. The circular pattern on them also speaks on the circle of life, which is constantly moving, yet always the same. However, Man Ray is attempting to break the typical cycle through his atypical art.
Entr' acte Rene Clair 1. As in Le Retour, the camera in this film is static for the majority, with the movement instead occurring within the frame. This is exemplified by the shot of the dancer spinning, or shooting eggs floating from side to side. However, there are some instances of movement, for example when the camera follows the paper airplane’s rapid movements. The mixture of static and moving camera does not allow the viewer have set expectations. There are a mixture of landscapes and close-ups within the film, but both diverge from their typical functions. The landscapes seen at the beginning are flipped so they are facing diagonally upside down (telling the viewer from the start that avant garde cinema will flip what people think they know about films upside down). There are also upside down closeups, including the man’s face around 6:00, and the shots of the dancer.
2.Although the lighting in Entr’acte is clearly intentional, it is used more to draw the viewers attention to certain thing within the frame (like the all white dancer against the all black background) rather than to add to the implicit meaning. Therefore, I believe that Clair used lighting as just another means of artistic expression that he got to manipulate (the glowing eyes on the multiple eggs), in an effort to express his own experimental style.
3. It is easy to identify with the camera lens, as it is either moving to follow an object, as your own eyes would move, or it is static with a moving object in the frame totally drawing your attention. Thus, we see only what Clair wants us to see, and, because of the multitude of unrelated images, could imagine pretty much anything and find a way for it to fit in. However, we do not attempt to do that as Clair’s images were very much intentional and part of his artistic vision and also helped to create implicit meaning. The decision to keep the camera static for the majority of the film speaks upon life’s inescapable structure, while the images he choses to show are of things that, for the most part, contribute to the idea of mortality, as discussed below.
4. The film seems to speak on human mortality, especially given the common motif of combative objects including guns, a cannon and boxing gloves. The presence of a coffin, a direct embodiment of death, is also central to the film. However, the most dramatic statement on death is the ending of the film in which a magician emerges from the coffin and takes on almost a grim reaper type role, causing everyone to disappear, as if he is taking their lives. The idea of mortality is also supported by the slow motion shots of groups running, as they are running as if trying to extend life, which is inevitably too short.
1. As the cinematography for this film was done by Man Ray, there are many parallels that can be drawn to “Le Retour.” The camera is static with a lot of movement in the frame, weather it be lips smiling, eyes blinking, or a kaleidoscope type effect. It is composed of medium shots and closeups, forcing the viewer to look at the image at hand.
2. As in the other films, the object in the frame which the directors wish the viewer to focus on, is bright against a black background. This places a greater significance on the object, the compilation of which contribute to the meaning.
3. Once again, it is easy to identify with the camera lens. There is often only one object in the frame, which stands out even more because of its brightness. The viewer thus looks at what the directors intended, essentially seeing through the lens that the cinematographer saw through. A unique aspect of this film is the movement of objects into and out of the foreground/changing sizes from larger to smaller. This size change draws the viewer’s eyes right into the object at hand, helping them to realize the significance of the objects, and thus understand the meaning, as discussed below.
4. Like most, if not all, avant garde films, the purpose is one of artistic expression rather than one certain meaning. However, I believe this leaves room for the viewer to come up with their own conclusions, as I did once again for this film. Throughout ‘Ballet,’ there are simple human emotions (the smile) and actions (the women carrying a sack up a hill) interspersed with shots of machinery. This, with support of the title, implies that as machines begin to take over production, art begins to die. Whether that art be ballet, the making of cloth, or filmmaking, something avant garde film makers wished to prevent.
1. For the most part, Man Ray utilizes only static camera to show all close ups and medium shots of things moving rapidly throughout the frame, causing the viewers to focus in more on each object as they appear one after another.
2. I do not see the meaning created by the lighting Man Ray used. If I had to take a guess, I would say that lighting is used to create the contrast between the same things in life, like people. This is shown through the objects being shown negatively, creating that reversal and difference, through light and dark.
3. Man Ray compels you to basically see things closer than you would actually see them usually. The camera shows you things such as nails, lights, and other things at closer views and at a fast pace, causing us, the viewers to focus more on them and identify with them more.
4. May Ray creates the implicit meaning through the contrast between light and dark. As Flora said, this contrast shows the differences in society. This is shown by the contrast of the objects going from positive to negative, as well as the lights of the marry-go contrasting the things behind it.
1. As in the Man Ray film, the camera was mostly static, with the motion of the film often occurring inside the frame of the camera lens. But at many points, it seemed as if the camera actually followed objects on the screen. One example if the static camera would be as the man danced above the camera. He was the motion in the frame, rather than the camera creating the motion. But, an instance in with the camera moved is where there had seemed to have been a boat edited into the film so that it would be moving over the buildings. At this point, the camera created the motion.
2. I agree with Ellie on the topic of lighting, considering throughout this film, light really did not play much of a factor, besides the scenes with the ballerina, which only the legs of the dancer were lit, but that was mainly because of the angle of the shots. The lighting of this film was mostly neutral and natural.
3. In this film, it is easy to identify with the camera lens. Throughout this film, you follow the motion in the frame or the motion of the camera. And, unlike Man Ray's film, the action moves at a somewhat slower pace, making the film easier to watch and more simplistic. In a way, this makes the film more identifiable.
4. Implicitly, I believe this film is in a way about humans and their love for competition. Throughout this film, there are scenes that show people competing with one and other, such as the chess match, or people competing with objects, such as the man shooting the egg. These films all in a way tie into human nature.
1. This film can be compared the other two, as well as most avant grade films, in the fact that the camera is often just static, causing the viewers to watch just the objects on screen. The film is often composed of medium shots and close ups, making each object in the frame more identifiable to the viewer.
2. As Ellie and Flora both pointed out, lighting only comes into play when you see a bright object, placed against a dark surface or background, creating that contrast we saw often throughout the Man Ray film.
3. Of all the films, this was the easiest to identify with the camera lens. Everything the director wanted us to see, we saw. Since the motion was created through the motion in the frame, that caused us to be able to focus on the object at hand more. Not to mention that every object j=stuck out due to the contrasting lighting between the object and the dark background.
4. Unlike most of my peers, I found NO implicit meaning. The film was composed of nothing but random shots that did not blend together to make one substantial meaning or purpose. Sorry Mrs. Holden, I tried. :(
Le Retour a la Raison
ReplyDelete1. Man Ray utilizes close ups far more than landscapes. For the most part the camera is static but in certain situations Man Ray changes quickly to a moving camera. The most notable example of this is during the shot of the fairground where the camera pans back and forth very quickly creating a dizzying sensation for the viewer.
2. Man Ray’s use of lighting is at times subtle. My favorite example of the usage of shadows and lighting happens as the mobile is spinning with its shadow and appears to dance with itself. Conversely, the lighting is often quick and in bright flashes out of darkness that grabs the reader’s attention and holds it.
3. Man Ray compels the viewer to witness events from strange angles. In the shot of the women twirling her body it is notable that the viewer never sees her face or her lower body. Man Ray purposely leaves them out and in doing so, piques the viewer’s curiosity and holds their attention more fully.
4. The most glaring implicit meaning that I picked up on was a sentiment of sexual desire demonstrated by the shots of the woman’s torso and breasts. What was particularly interesting about that particular group of shots is that the movement in the shots came from the woman twirling her torso rather than camera movement. In this way, she appeared to be exhibiting her body for the static camera.
Entr’acte
1. Like Man Ray’s “le Retour a la Raison”, Rene Clair favors a static camera. Almost all of “Entr’acte”’s action comes from on camera and usually either with dramatic speed or an extended use of slow motion. At the same time, however, he uses the moving camera in the chase scene involving the hearse. Unlike Man Ray, Rene Clair utilizes far more landscapes than close ups and through this his film contains a more clear and consistent plot, however scattered it might be.
2. Rene Clair’s use of lighting is less obstreperous than Man Ray’s. He appears to use more natural lighting and there is less contrast.
3. Rene Clair leaves out almost any segue from one clip to another. This makes it extremely difficult for the viewer to make sense of the action that takes place on screen. Furthermore, Clair turns the film upside down at many points, which is disorienting for the viewer.
4. The best implicit meaning that I could interpret from the film was that the film mocked the finality and serious aspects of death. I felt as though the last scene was Clair pointing out that everyone eventually dies so it isn’t a big deal. As I was reading the review under the film, however, I stumbled upon what I found to be a very profound implicit meaning. Since Entr’acte was between two acts of a ballet, the author offered an interesting suggestion: “Could the Entr'acte of the film's title represent that short period of what we call "life", that too brief an interval between two acts of an eternal duration? “
Le Ballet Mecanique:
1. Fernand Leger and Dudley Murphy favor mostly close-ups and the camera remains static.
2. The lighting in “Le Ballet Mecanique” was very interesting. The background of the shots were usually black and the objects that were the focus of the shot were usually extremely well lit and contrasted sharply with the black backdrop.
3. Luger and Murphy show us snippets of people or snippets of people’s faces. For instance there are many shots of a women smiling again and again. There are also repeated shots of eyes blinking. Throughout the film we rarely see the whole of anything, merely parts.
4. Because of its extreme experimental nature it was difficult to find implicit meaning in “Le Ballet Mecanique”. However, I noticed a focus on circles, ovals and triangles. Furthermore, the film repeated many pendulum motions, such as the woman swinging on the swing and on various machines. Like I mentioned earlier, the film relies heavily on close ups rather than filming entire objects. The directors might be implicitly suggesting that the audience should focus more on the smaller things in life.
Le Retour a la raison:
ReplyDelete1. In this short film, there are nearly no landscapes present at all. Nearly every clip is very close-up and directly in front of the viewers line of vision. The camera is basically always static and the objects inside each frame are what moves. However, there are a lot of jerky movements due to the choppy editing and object change.
2. In this particular Avant Garde film, I did not find the lighting to help create meaning (possibly because I don’t understand the true meaning!) However, the director did implement the use of shadow in various portions. For example, during the clip of the exposed women, there are bar-like shadows covering her torso. Perhaps, the director was trying to portray her sense of entrapment as a women living in the early 20’s.
3. Since the camera is completely static throughout the film, the director compels you to see only what is exactly shown on-screen. Anything beyond the world of the film is left to the viewers imagination because what they do and can see, is very limited.
4. I definitely did not find there to be any obvious implicit meaning to Le Retour a la raison. However, I did notice a strong theme of circles and round objects (such as the nails, clock, light bulb, coil, etc.) that were all very present and clear.
Entr’acte:
1. Unlike in Le Retour a la raison, Ent’racte has a much wider variety of shot types. The camera works in both static, and moving ways. There are not very many close-ups which already creates huge differences between this Avant Garde film and its predecessors. Many of the shots seen in this film are either landscapes or medium shots, revealing much more to the audience then Le Retour a la raison.
2. Much like in Le Retour, I did not find any significant meaning in Clair’s use of lighting. There are many very lit spots, as well as very dark spots. As an example, the ballerina scene sticks out in my mind as being particularly dark. The stage is nearly completely black, as well as the face of this mysterious dancer, which we find out later happens to be a man. Here, the only thing really lit are the dancers legs and tutu, possible because the director wants the mans true identity hidden until later in the film.
3. At times, the director compels the viewer to see just what is on-screen (mostly when there are close-ups), but many others times the director opens up the frames to create a more understandable film (mostly when there is a moving camera or landscape.) In these particular moments, the viewer gets a better look at the whole picture and story.
4. Although the film is made up of very unrelated clips, I do find it to have some substantial meaning. Particularly with the funeral procession, the director seems to be mocking standard, everyday rituals. Rene Clair also seems to be making fun of the seriousness of art, in this case ballet. Here, we see a male ballerina gracefully dancing what traditionally would be a women’s dance, in a very comical way.
Le Ballet Mechanique:
ReplyDelete1. Similarly to Le Retour, there are a great deal of close-ups, rather than any other type of shot. The camera remains static for most of the film, as the objects inside of each frame move about.
2. I found that the lighting in Le Ballet Mechanique was vastly different from the other two Avant Garde films. The objects in the foreground were generally extremely bright, compared to the dark backgrounds. This feature really highlighted each object’s purpose in the film.
3. Legar shows the viewer very little about the whole picture. The film is basically composed of quick images of extremely random things, ranging from people, to household appliances, to shapes. I found that the director really leaves out a huge portion of the story, leaving me unable to really grasp what it is about.
4. This was most difficult of the three films to find implicit meaning from. I didn’t really understand how the images on-screen really fit together in any sort of coherent manner.... To be perfectly honest. But that’s not to say that I didn’t find it very interesting!
Man Ray: Le Retour a la raison:
ReplyDelete1. The film, really has no set style that it sticks with, which is sort of the point of Avant- garde films as they are meant to defy the norms of both cinema and society (or I suppose some avant-garde film makers would consider that the same thing). The static camera is used very rarely, only when there is static on the screen or shadows of other things; and it is usually a close-up, which could be meant to convey the entrapment that these filmmakers felt in their conventions.
2. Yes, I think the lighting is really where the meaning of the film comes in, especially with the spinning object (I really don’t know what it’s called, but you know what shot I mean) – as the lighting produces a shadow in the background that makes the viewer see double, or that there is actually two separate objects. This could be interpreted in many different ways, possibly the duality of things.
3. The camera lens is really the only thing that you can identify with, as it is difficult for the viewer to grasp ahold of. The director obscures your view of almost everything – notably the spinning lights in the dark: the viewer can see them but has no clue as to what they really are, so it is left for interpretation. This gives the film the meaning that you, as the viewer are meant to figure things out for yourselves, and not depend solely on the director to spell everything out.
4. I think the implicit meaning of the film is the duality of things – for everything we see there is two different views. Every shot, even the static, is shown in two different ways – whether it is the direction it is moving on the screen or color. Some static is shown white and black and then white and grey, and the spinning lights go in one direction and then cut to a shot of them going in a different direction.
Rene Clair: Entr’acte:
1. The structure of this film is a bit more accessible than the previous one, as it holds to some conventions of cinema: establishing shots, wide shots, close-ups, etc. This film seems more interested in upsetting the norms of cinema at the time through it’s’ context and commentary rather than its experimentation (though it’s from far void of experimentation).
2. One of the most interesting uses of light comes when the man with the bird on his hat is shot down from the roof and falls to his death. The camera is aimed directly at the sun (which itself must have been extremely revolutionary for the time) and slowly fades away as if to represent the dying man’s loss of vision, or closing eyes.
3. The camera almost takes the role of an onlooker to the chaotic events of the situation, and yet sees nothing strange with them – as if all the actions on the screen were normal. And Clair makes sure that we see everything, no matter how unnecessary the viewer may consider it.
4. The implicit meaning of the film is definitely the absurdity of the bourgeoisie class, or even just the upper class. Instead of showing their obsession with wealth and hypocrisy as absurd, the director literally makes them absurd, with street chases, rooftop shootings, and more.
Fernand Leger: Ballet mecanique:
ReplyDelete1. Every single shot in the film is a close-up and the camera is always static – noticeably when the woman in swinging you can only see her when she goes pass the camera.
2. I think that the lighting is used more for style than for actual meaning in this film. Many of the shots are put in very placid lighting, giving the film an old-time photo look. And with the static camera and quirks such as the dancing puppet the film works more like a presentation than a movie.
3. The camera lens is static, not moving, so there is much off screen that is not visible and left to the imagination. Sometimes it is known, such as when the girl is on the swing; when she disappears we know she is still on the swing. Other times we must figure it out for ourselves, such as the smile of the girl the viewer is shown with no other object. Match cuts with that specific part play an important role to question, or maybe confuse, the viewer.
4. With the match cuts of the woman’s eyes to many objects and actions in everyday life leads me to believe that the film is just about the wonders of life – not necessary good or bad, since just joyous wonders seems far too happy for an avant-garde film (but maybe not).
Le Retour a la Raison
ReplyDeleteMan Ray
1.For the majority of the film the camera remains static as the objects inside the frame, both animated and otherwise, move rapidly (or relatively slowly, as in the shot with the female figure). These objects, both recognizable and ambiguous, are all shot in medium shots or close-ups, with rapid editing forcing the viewer to focus on one right after the other.
2.Throughout the film, the objects which Man Ray wants the viewer to focus on are either white and almost glowing against the dark background (the falling nails at :30) or the inverse(the falling nails at :20). This sharp contrast between dark and light adds to Man Ray’s artistic vision while helping to create an implicit statement on society. I believe Man Ray is speaking upon how the average person views every situation as clear cut and black and white. However, through this film, which plays with viewer expectation and does not follow typical rules, Man Ray wants the viewer to realize that their initial assumptions may be wrong, and everything is not as simple to figure out as they may think.
3.The fast pace, lack of landscape, and constant kinesis within the frame encourage the viewer to focus on exactly what Man Ray intended. This is enhanced by the fact that despite all of the hectic movement, there is really only one focal point in each shot, as is exemplified by the animated spinning face, even if that focal object is repeated, as is the case with the nails. We thus become the camera lens, and despite the unrecognizable images, simply absorb what is within the frame. Many of the focal objects in this film that the viewer is forced to focus on and contemplate are organic and circular, which helps Man Ray express his theme of life’s cyclic nature, as discussed below.
4. Although avant garde film is more of an undefined, anti-academic, means of artistic expression from which it is hard to draw concrete meaning, Man Ray seems to be commenting on human nature. The spinning of the hanging objects and repetition (in inverse colors) of the face and nails indicate that life is a continuous cycle. This seems supported by the initial shot of some sort of microscopic organism beginning life and the ending shot of breasts, which are essentially the root of life. The circular pattern on them also speaks on the circle of life, which is constantly moving, yet always the same. However, Man Ray is attempting to break the typical cycle through his atypical art.
Entr' acte
ReplyDeleteRene Clair
1. As in Le Retour, the camera in this film is static for the majority, with the movement instead occurring within the frame. This is exemplified by the shot of the dancer spinning, or shooting eggs floating from side to side. However, there are some instances of movement, for example when the camera follows the paper airplane’s rapid movements. The mixture of static and moving camera does not allow the viewer have set expectations. There are a mixture of landscapes and close-ups within the film, but both diverge from their typical functions. The landscapes seen at the beginning are flipped so they are facing diagonally upside down (telling the viewer from the start that avant garde cinema will flip what people think they know about films upside down). There are also upside down closeups, including the man’s face around 6:00, and the shots of the dancer.
2.Although the lighting in Entr’acte is clearly intentional, it is used more to draw the viewers attention to certain thing within the frame (like the all white dancer against the all black background) rather than to add to the implicit meaning. Therefore, I believe that Clair used lighting as just another means of artistic expression that he got to manipulate (the glowing eyes on the multiple eggs), in an effort to express his own experimental style.
3. It is easy to identify with the camera lens, as it is either moving to follow an object, as your own eyes would move, or it is static with a moving object in the frame totally drawing your attention. Thus, we see only what Clair wants us to see, and, because of the multitude of unrelated images, could imagine pretty much anything and find a way for it to fit in. However, we do not attempt to do that as Clair’s images were very much intentional and part of his artistic vision and also helped to create implicit meaning. The decision to keep the camera static for the majority of the film speaks upon life’s inescapable structure, while the images he choses to show are of things that, for the most part, contribute to the idea of mortality, as discussed below.
4. The film seems to speak on human mortality, especially given the common motif of combative objects including guns, a cannon and boxing gloves. The presence of a coffin, a direct embodiment of death, is also central to the film. However, the most dramatic statement on death is the ending of the film in which a magician emerges from the coffin and takes on almost a grim reaper type role, causing everyone to disappear, as if he is taking their lives. The idea of mortality is also supported by the slow motion shots of groups running, as they are running as if trying to extend life, which is inevitably too short.
Ballet Mécanique
ReplyDeleteFernand Légar and Dudley Murphy
1. As the cinematography for this film was done by Man Ray, there are many parallels that can be drawn to “Le Retour.” The camera is static with a lot of movement in the frame, weather it be lips smiling, eyes blinking, or a kaleidoscope type effect. It is composed of medium shots and closeups, forcing the viewer to look at the image at hand.
2. As in the other films, the object in the frame which the directors wish the viewer to focus on, is bright against a black background. This places a greater significance on the object, the compilation of which contribute to the meaning.
3. Once again, it is easy to identify with the camera lens. There is often only one object in the frame, which stands out even more because of its brightness. The viewer thus looks at what the directors intended, essentially seeing through the lens that the cinematographer saw through. A unique aspect of this film is the movement of objects into and out of the foreground/changing sizes from larger to smaller. This size change draws the viewer’s eyes right into the object at hand, helping them to realize the significance of the objects, and thus understand the meaning, as discussed below.
4. Like most, if not all, avant garde films, the purpose is one of artistic expression rather than one certain meaning. However, I believe this leaves room for the viewer to come up with their own conclusions, as I did once again for this film. Throughout ‘Ballet,’ there are simple human emotions (the smile) and actions (the women carrying a sack up a hill) interspersed with shots of machinery. This, with support of the title, implies that as machines begin to take over production, art begins to die. Whether that art be ballet, the making of cloth, or filmmaking, something avant garde film makers wished to prevent.
Le Retour a la Raison
ReplyDelete1. For the most part, Man Ray utilizes only static camera to show all close ups and medium shots of things moving rapidly throughout the frame, causing the viewers to focus in more on each object as they appear one after another.
2. I do not see the meaning created by the lighting Man Ray used. If I had to take a guess, I would say that lighting is used to create the contrast between the same things in life, like people. This is shown through the objects being shown negatively, creating that reversal and difference, through light and dark.
3. Man Ray compels you to basically see things closer than you would actually see them usually. The camera shows you things such as nails, lights, and other things at closer views and at a fast pace, causing us, the viewers to focus more on them and identify with them more.
4. May Ray creates the implicit meaning through the contrast between light and dark. As Flora said, this contrast shows the differences in society. This is shown by the contrast of the objects going from positive to negative, as well as the lights of the marry-go contrasting the things behind it.
Entr’acte
ReplyDelete1. As in the Man Ray film, the camera was mostly static, with the motion of the film often occurring inside the frame of the camera lens. But at many points, it seemed as if the camera actually followed objects on the screen. One example if the static camera would be as the man danced above the camera. He was the motion in the frame, rather than the camera creating the motion. But, an instance in with the camera moved is where there had seemed to have been a boat edited into the film so that it would be moving over the buildings. At this point, the camera created the motion.
2. I agree with Ellie on the topic of lighting, considering throughout this film, light really did not play much of a factor, besides the scenes with the ballerina, which only the legs of the dancer were lit, but that was mainly because of the angle of the shots. The lighting of this film was mostly neutral and natural.
3. In this film, it is easy to identify with the camera lens. Throughout this film, you follow the motion in the frame or the motion of the camera. And, unlike Man Ray's film, the action moves at a somewhat slower pace, making the film easier to watch and more simplistic. In a way, this makes the film more identifiable.
4. Implicitly, I believe this film is in a way about humans and their love for competition. Throughout this film, there are scenes that show people competing with one and other, such as the chess match, or people competing with objects, such as the man shooting the egg. These films all in a way tie into human nature.
Ballet Mécanique
ReplyDelete1. This film can be compared the other two, as well as most avant grade films, in the fact that the camera is often just static, causing the viewers to watch just the objects on screen. The film is often composed of medium shots and close ups, making each object in the frame more identifiable to the viewer.
2. As Ellie and Flora both pointed out, lighting only comes into play when you see a bright object, placed against a dark surface or background, creating that contrast we saw often throughout the Man Ray film.
3. Of all the films, this was the easiest to identify with the camera lens. Everything the director wanted us to see, we saw. Since the motion was created through the motion in the frame, that caused us to be able to focus on the object at hand more. Not to mention that every object j=stuck out due to the contrasting lighting between the object and the dark background.
4. Unlike most of my peers, I found NO implicit meaning. The film was composed of nothing but random shots that did not blend together to make one substantial meaning or purpose. Sorry Mrs. Holden, I tried. :(